Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • A.J. Sutter on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • A.J. Sutter on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Tony Antognoli on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity

    • Corey Yung on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity

    • PrometheeFeu on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Tony Antognoli on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity

    • Andrew Selbst on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • PrometheeFeu on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Joe on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Andrew Selbst on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Mary Dudziak on Announcement for the Paul Murphy Prize

    • Brett Bellmore on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Joe on The Greatest Supreme Court Opinion?

    • Joe Miller on The Greatest Supreme Court Opinion?

    • Andrew Carlon on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Taking Inequality Personally

posted by Frank Pasquale

The Washington Times has accused Barbara Ehrenreich of being a Marxist for her work exposing the effects of inequality in the US. (Maybe they bought into that scurrilous Facebook app “What German Philosopher is She“?) I wonder if intellectuals’ attitudes toward inequality are rooted in encounters like these:

In the first meeting of my first seminar of my first year, [real-estate developer Charles] Kushner’s son Jared entered my classroom and promptly took the seat across from mine, sharing the room, so to speak. I was drawing an annual salary of $15,500 and borrowing the remainder for survival in Cambridge, in order that he might be given the best possible education. [About 5 years later] Jared . . . purchased The New York Observer for $10 million, part of which he made buying and selling real estate while also attending my seminar. As publisher, one of his first moves was to reduce pay for the Observer‘s stable of book reviewers. I had been writing reviews for the Observer in an effort to pay my debts.

I guess somebody isn’t going to be supporting estate tax repeal.


 July 23, 2008 at 9:37 pm   Posted in: Law and Inequality   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (11)

  1. Orin Kerr - July 24, 2008 at 12:30 am

    I recently read Ehrenreich’s 1969 book, “Long March, Short Spring — the Student Uprising at Home and Abroad. Not only was she pretty heavily Marxist in her writing back then, but her attitude toward inequality was based on experiences like how the Columbia University faculty oppressed Columbia undergraduates in ’68 by objecting when they took over university buildings, barricades the doors, and held faculty members as hostages. Ivy League college students taking faculty members hostages was really speaking truth to power, as she tells it.

    Given that she seemed pretty Marxist back in 1969, I would doubt that it was her classroom experience decades later when she had become a faculty member herself so much influenced her views.

  2. Paul Gowder - July 24, 2008 at 1:58 am

    Someone remind me again why being a Marxist is supposed to be discreditable?

  3. Orin Kerr - July 24, 2008 at 3:53 am

    Paul,

    Beling a Marxist is a lot like believing George W. Bush is the greatest President in American history. Most people will think you’re out of touch, because they think all the evidence is to the contrary. On the other hand, there are pockets of true believers who insist the doubters are the ones who just don’t get it. As a result, whether it’s discreditable depends on which crowd you have in mind.

  4. TRE - July 24, 2008 at 4:01 am

    As we all learned from the Salem Witch Trials, there is no such thing as a Marxist.

  5. Seth Finkelstein - July 24, 2008 at 6:17 am

    @Orin Kerr – you’re conflating two different people mentioned in the post. The classroom story is by someone else, not Barbara Ehrenreich.

    And the full sentence is “Twenty years ago, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote an article for the New York Times in which she pointed out the growing inequality of American society and was promptly denounced, by a rival paper, as a Marxist.”

    @Paul Gowder – “Marxist” is a code-word/slur meaning something like “this person is such a left-wing nut they should be dismissed immediately on general principles because we all know liberalism is wrong and Libertarianism is right”.

  6. Orin Kerr - July 24, 2008 at 6:59 am

    Seth, you’re absolutely right; thanks for the correction.

    Although your description of how people use the world Marxist seems a bit off, I think. For the most part, people use “Marxist” as a term to mean a socialist, in my experience; given how few libertarians there are, your definiion seems particularly unlikely.

  7. Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 24, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Orin,

    Perhaps you would agree that “most people” have not a clue about what the bulk of Marx’s writings are about. Few, for instance, have little appreciation for the fact that Marx wrote (for better and worse) comparatively little about what he understood by both socialism and communism.

    FWIW: Part of my worldview is unabashedly Marxist. As to the sense in which I’m a Marxist, it closely tracks the closing words from Jon Elster’s indispensable study, Making Sense of Marx (1985):

    “It is not possible today, morally or intellectually, to be a Marxist in the traditional sense. This would be someone who accepted all or most of the views that Marx held to be true and important–scientific socialism, the labour theory of value or the theory of falling rate of profit [I see things a bit differently than Elster on these two items], together with other and more defensible views. But, speaking now for myself only, I believe it is still possible to be a Marxist in a rather different sense of the term. I find that most of the views that *I* hold to be true and important, I can trace back to Marx. This includes methodology, substantive theories and, above all, values. The critique of exploitation and alienation remains central. A better society would be one that allowed all human beings to do what only human beings can do–to create, to invent, to imagine other worlds.” (Elster, p. 531).

    Indeed, in the spirit of the above, I find myself drawn to the “Marxist conception of the good life,” at least as spelled out by Elster in his brilliant essay, “Self-Realisation in Work and Politics: The Marxist Conception of the Good Life,” in Jon Elster and Karl Ove Moene, eds., Alternatives to Capitalism, 1989: 127-158.

    Finally, and incidentally, I’ve put together fairly short and select bibliography on Marx and Marxism (secondary literature) should anyone be interested in widening and deepening their knowledge in this area.

  8. Joseph Slater - July 24, 2008 at 9:53 am

    It is a darn shame that anyone who expresses concern over the societal effects of significantly increasing disparities in wealth and income, or anyone who argues that economic class can be an important explanatory factor in political and social movements gets labeled a “Marxist” by some on the right. The point, obviously, is to dimiss the critiques without consideration because the critic is somewhere on a scale ranging from “out of touch” to “believing things that caused Stalin and Mao’s atrocities.”

    There is, of course, a fine tradition of socialism/social democracy that has always been independent of and highly critical of Soviet-style communism. And some of that was based in some of Marx’s ideas. I wouldn’t call myself a “Marxist” for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the facts that (i) he was wrong about some important things; (ii) horrible folks have used and misused some of his ideas with tragic consequences; and (iii) I’m not comfortable with being an “ist” for anybody — I would prefer to evaluate and critique ideas without worrying about whether I was being faithful to the notions of some individual long gone. But some of Marx’s ideas were accurate (to Patrick’s list I’ll add the notion that economic class is important in ideological formation and in understanding history and society generally), and some of his ideas spurred other movements and thinkers that have had positive effects.

    Barbara E.’s intellectual roots come partly from that non-communist socialist tradition, partly from some ideas developed during and in reaction to the new left (e.g., feminism, trying to understand how class worked in modern American society), but much is her own invention. Her works speak for themselves, and should be evaluated without recourse to labels meant to be insulting and dismissive.

    To the extent she is trying to call our attention to the depressingly enormous gaps in wealth and income and the negative effects those gaps have in society, more power to her. Let’s listen to her arguments and evaluate them on their own merits.

  9. Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 24, 2008 at 10:17 am

    It’s always refreshing to hear Joseph’s voice of sanity and reason.

    As to the literature on classes, and by way of backing up his point about the ideological function of economic class(es), among other things, I’ll be so bold as to suggest one read the works of Erik Olin Wright for a contemporary Marxist take on the topic.

  10. Orin Kerr - July 24, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Patrick,

    I agree that most people don’t understand what the bulk of Marx’s writing were about. Indeed, this is probably true about the work of every major thinker/writer, whether it is Marx or Hayek or Adam Smith.

    I do think there is a modern understanding of what Marxism is that is based on what self-described Marxists claim to believe; much like with Burkean conservatism, the set of beliefs is often that of self-described followers centuries later than with the original.

  11. Dave - July 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    As an unabashed capitalist (and a once youthful Marxist) who recognizes the contributions of Marx to the social sciences, I am in full agreement with Patrick. It is unfortunate that the term Marxist has come to mean a state just short of stupidity. But it should be noted that it is the Marxists themselves who created that problem by taking a few concepts and turning them into a century and a half of nightmares. Today, the failure of the vast majority of “Marxist” systems (meaning those that involved some greater degree of state control of property and markets than basic liberal taxation and regulation) is clear, and we are not just talking about Stalin and Mao. Even Marxist-lite social theories and movements such as dependency theory and import substitution industrialization have proved to have disastrous consequences for the same workers they proposed to serve. It’s no wonder that the world has a distate for Marxism, and it is the Marxists that are to blame. Perhaps the time has come for those who would critique modern liberal capitalism to a) find a set of policy recommendations that does not involve drastic incursions on private ownership and free markets, and b) find a new seminal thinker upon whose ideas this new critique would be based, since “Marx” has outlived any usefulness it may have once had.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress